The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "business" subject to protection under the Criminal Act for the crime of interference with business refers to business or affairs continuously or continuously engaged in, which is worth protecting from infringement by other persons' unlawful acts. It is not necessarily a legal basis for contract or administrative acts, etc. which are the basis of such business. Thus, whether a business is worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually formed in a peaceful manner and is the basis of social activities. Even if there is a substantive or procedural defect in the process of commencement or performance of such business, the degree of such defect does not reach the anti-sociality, it shall be deemed as subject to protection for interference with business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382 Decided March 9, 2006). The court below found the Defendant guilty on the charge of this case on the premise that the Defendant’s transfer of the right to operate a kindergarten and a child care center from around November 20, 2008 to the Defendant and recognized the fact that the Defendant independently operated the kindergarten and the child care center thereafter, and that the act of operating a kindergarten and a child care center by lending the authorization from the Defendant does not violate the Infant Care Act and the Early Childhood Education Act, but the act of operating a kindergarten and a child care center from the Defendant does not constitute a violation of the Infant Care Act and the Early Childhood Education Act.

Examining the above legal principles and evidence duly admitted and investigated, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on duties subject to protection of the crime of interference with business.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.